What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Mirrorglass]

I'd have to side with Kevin on this, if nothing else (though not in the particular application of it). Kant actually is an established authorative source in the Philosophy of ethics. Therefore, in this case, yes, it is an argument from authority, but it is not a fallacy.

I think any argument of authority is fallacious, no matter how great the authority. On philosophical matters, to make an argument, you must present the line of reasoning that brought it, not just the name of a famous philosopher. Referring to Kant is also very dishonest, here, since Kevin clearly rejects Kant's ideas on animal rights.

Anyway, Kevin already said he wasn't saying Kant's opinion gives his opinion value. Which begs the question what the purpose of mentioning Kant at all was.

Quite the contrary, but this is not the first time, or regrettably the last, you dare to speak on matters of which you know so little. Some people come to veganism via environmental concerns, specifically how inefficient it is to produce meat (~12+ pounds of grain to generate a single pound of beef, unconscionable waste of water, cow farts, pig ****, health-care costs, land use). I have posts up about it, discussed the issue many times with people who are sharper than you.

Finally! I've been expecting this point since page one! Why did it take so long for the vegans to find arguments that don't rely on calling meat-eaters stupid? No, I should be glad this was brought up.

This is a good point, and fairly close to correct. However, the fact remains that humans need protein, and that is harder to get from vegetable sources. My question is: would moving to vegan agriculture on the large scale really improve the effectiveness of food production, without leading to adverse health effects via bad diets? Is such a move feasible (even disregarding people's attitudes)?

I should say here I'll only accept actual, scientifically qualified analysis of the subject. I'm sure one of our vegans here has looked into this stuff.

 

[cyborg]

You said something similar to Kevin, more than once. So now you imagine yourself as a Mike Wallace?

Don't have a clue who Mike Wallace is.

I thought I gave you more time than you deserved, but what was one such question?

Am I a vegan?

"Do your farts smell?" Quote it.

It's simple Cain, each item of petulant behaviour from you is met in kind. This makes stopping such replies solely under your control.

 

[cyborg]

Also, why would drawing the line at abstract thinking be more arbitrary than drawing it at capacity for suffering?

I have no idea but I myself have presented no theoretical basis as to what quality it is one should consider prime in moral consideration. I would in fact make the stronger argument that you couldn't choose out without unintended consequences anyway.

Or rather, can you provide an example of a moral system that does not?

Since moral systems are abstract ones and not physical ones this is not possible. Choose the system, place the players and let the consequences unfold.

The reason I would still not kill or hurt the person is the same as my reason for not hurting animals unnecessarily; such acts are very reminiscent to hurting people that can actually suffer. It would feel like hurting a person.

Yes, and this is the crux of it. Arguments that talk about the best intentions of animals do so from a human emotional perspective regardless of the validity of doing so.

Also thus far in this thread I have learned that "meat-eater" is not mutually exclusive from "vegan" so presumably we need a better term than that.

 

[cyborg]

Finally! I've been expecting this point since page one! Why did it take so long for the vegans to find arguments that don't rely on calling meat-eaters stupid?

Well he didn't quite manage to present that factoid without heavily implying it did he?

 

[Mirrorglass]

I have no idea but I myself have presented no theoretical basis as to what quality it is one should consider prime in moral consideration. I would in fact make the stronger argument that you couldn't choose out without unintended consequences anyway.

That's interesting, and you might be right. By what reasoning do you arrive at the conclusion that it's wrong to eat humans, then, assuming you do?

Since moral systems are abstract ones and not physical ones this is not possible. Choose the system, place the players and let the consequences unfold.

This is my opinion as well. It seems many people don't agree, though.

Also thus far in this thread I have learned that "meat-eater" is not mutually exclusive from "vegan" so presumably we need a better term than that.

If you don't mind, I'll still only use the words to denote a choice of diet.

Well he didn't quite manage to present that factoid without heavily implying it did he?

Aww, don't be so harsh. A little bit of implied insult is like a sprinkle of salt on the french fries of internet debate.

 

[Drudgewire]

Sorry Kevin, I havent been following this thread, so excuse the possibly stupid question - why would I want to do this? Assuming I have no moral qualms with the slaughter of animals for food, what is my motivation to cut meat out of my diet and work around the resulting nutritional deficiencies?

So you can strain your arm patting yourself on the back and fingerpointing like the oh-so-better-than-you vegans.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I can provide my own answers, of course. That goes without saying. However you have missed the point: I don't think you can provide answers which can justifiably be described as moral which are consistent with your previous statements, thus my questions for you. You're welcome to try.



If we unpack this old chestnut, it amounts to this:

"Different cultures have different ideas about what is moral. Therefore morality is culturally relative, no moral system is better than any other, and
morality is doing what your culture tells you to do".

The conclusion does not follow from the premises.



The Socratic method is a useful tool, but only if the teacher has the slightest goddamn clue about philosophy, and can keep track of an argument.

We are part of nature. We have moral ideas.

I don't know if you're just using plain sophistry or what, but I don't think you've answered my question within that bunch of confusing rhetoric. So I guess I'm going to try again. See if you can please answer it in a way that's clear, concise and simple:

What does Darwin's finding tell you about morality in nature? Do you still feel nature has any morality at all when it allows things like that to happen? Regardless of whether your answer is yes or no, please explain why.

 

[cyborg]

That's interesting, and you might be right. By what reasoning do you arrive at the conclusion that it's wrong to eat humans, then, assuming you do?

We should be clear that there is a difference between eating and producing meat. As such all moral issues are with how the meat is produced, not the consumption of it. Would it be wrong to eat one's own arm for example? What about the case of the cannibal and the man who was sexually aroused by being eaten? The fundamental reason for saying it is wrong to eat humans is that (most) humans don't want to be slaughtered for meat and that is reciprocally applied - so basically like any other moral reasoning it's nothing other than an unspoken contract for the mutual benefit of the parties concerned. But when that assumption doesn't hold it falls apart then it's pretty much only social disgust.

So I would reframe the issue back to the rights and wrongs of humans and their death as that is the relevant portion. Something that is thought to be unique to humans being their awareness of their own mortality that changes the equation significantly when trying to apply the same reasoning to other species equally.

If you don't mind, I'll still only use the words to denote a choice of diet.

Well I'll let the vegans address that one.

 

[Mirrorglass]

We should be clear that there is a difference between eating and producing meat. As such all moral issues are with how the meat is produced, not the consumption of it. Would it be wrong to eat one's own arm for example? What about the case of the cannibal and the man who was sexually aroused by being eaten? The fundamental reason for saying it is wrong to eat humans is that (most) humans don't want to be slaughtered for meat and that is reciprocally applied - so basically like any other moral reasoning it's nothing other than an unspoken contract for the mutual benefit of the parties concerned. But when that assumption doesn't hold it falls apart then it's pretty much only social disgust.

So I would reframe the issue back to the rights and wrongs of humans and their death as that is the relevant portion. Something that is thought to be unique to humans being their awareness of their own mortality that changes the equation significantly when trying to apply the same reasoning to other species equally.

I think this is pretty much equal to my views. The cases of people wanting to be eaten and such like are special cases outside the issue here, of course, but I think your "awareness of their own mortality" and my "capability for abstract thinking" are essentially the same thing, and we both agree that this is what draws the line between humans and animals.

 

[Cain]

Cyborg:
Re: The question I allegedly ducked.

Am I a vegan?

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach of Rule 12 and Rule 0.

I said, more than once, the circumstances matter. No one is more familiar with your lifestyle choices than you. All I can do is articulate the conditions and then you have the heavy work of exercising brain cells.

In my view, road-kill is vegan, a position that is not universally shared, and highlights my tension with the term. Imagine there's a rain forest plant that is a delicacy; however, it's extracted at great cost to its native eco-system and causes suffering for the herbivores who require it. It would be immoral to each such a plant, and for short-hand, I would not consider it vegan. Eating discarded pepperoni pizza is OK because it probably would have wasted away (this is sometimes called meeganism and/or freeganism). Alternatively, suppose the hypothetical rain forest plant is considered beautiful, and it's extracted simply for show. Furs, cosmetics tested on animals are more well-known examples in the same vein and push the limits of the word "vegan" because they're not actually eaten. Animal rights people vary in the amount of investigation into the products or services they consume, but the basic idea is not unlike "child labor" or "blood diamonds."

And if you missed it, see the sentence beginning with "Wow."

------------------

The vegan side... believes... all moral rules that apply to humans apply to animals as well.

No. The more common examples of dogs voting and lions getting charged for murder would not apply.

The vegan side claims this distinction is "arbitrary", and also seem to say "arbitrary" equals "useless" which, in this case, equals "wrong", all of which are questionable claims when speaking of morality. Also,
why would drawing the line at abstract thinking be more arbitrary than drawing it at capacity for suffering?

It's an arbitrary standard plucked from the ether. Most vegans argue that rights should be based on interests. A dog has no understanding of political elections -- not the slightest interest in voting -- so it should not receive a ballot. A dog can experience pain; in all likelihood, it does not enjoy pain. So we should not inflict pain on dogs (or other animals) unless we have a compelling reason (it's for the dog's own good, the earth is going to end, whatever). And here's the central dispute: most people say that animal suffering is worth it because they taste delicious.

This same interest-right based-thinking applies to infants or toddlers or whomever. Our reasoning does not go, "Hey, baby Jane Doe will one day understand a concept of rights." As a man, I do not have a right to an abortion, never mind if I have a better understanding of the concept than an 18 year-old girl, I can't have an abortion. Toddlers, dogs and mentally incapacitated people can still feel pain.

We agree pain is morally significant? Are we impartial enough to recognize that it does not matter who suffers, regardless of species? It's better for Homeless Willy to die in his sleep than have teenagers beat him to death.

So, what if you kill the animal painlessly? The next step involves future interests. If a cow leads an idyllic life on the farm, then why kill it at all? Because it has trivial interests (?) -- eating, defecating and screwing -- while you have big, important interests, say, eating something meat that tastes good?

If you do think animals have ANY rights, then it should not matter what a person does to them. If I want to torture cats, then that should be cool. If I want to make a coat from Dalmation puppies -- also totally cool. Once again, the meat-eaters are the ones who want to legislate their tastes: they (generally) say it's OK to eat animals, but bestiality is somehow wrong, "disgusting" and "twisted."

So, would you say that a human with no capacity for suffering, intentions or desires, but who has the potential to develop them, would it be okay to kill and eat them?

Sure. My only general objection to your post is the insistence on eating these morally insignificant beings. You can do almost anything you want to the blob of tissue provided you're not harming anyone of moral significance.

Now here's my scenario: A fire sweeps through a fertility clinic. You can save either a five year-old or a freezer containing hundreds of embryos.

As for the arbitrariness of the potential-argument.. Well, yes, it is arbitrary. So what? Why shouldn't a moral system make some arbitrary assumptions? Or rather, can you provide an example of a moral system that does not?

This is not a good argument. It's like saying, "everybody has irrational, unjustified beliefs." Sure, everybody does, but not all craziness is created equal.

The reason I would still not kill or hurt the person is the same as my reason for not hurting animals unnecessarily; such acts are very reminiscent to hurting people that can actually suffer. It would feel like hurting a person. Also, I can't think of a situation where hurting this retarded person was necessary; even the most fiery-souled vegan can't really think a meat-eater would consider eating human flesh any more readily than a vegan. Right?

This seems to suggest realistically simulated violence is not much worse than actual violence.

Environmental/resource vegetarianism is anthropocentric, morally off-kilter.

Here's one such thread from a couple years ago, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117736 The parent has an article that says "According to Cornell ecologist David Pimentel, animal protein demands tremendous expenditures of fossil-fuel energy—-about eight times as much for a comparable amount of plant protein."

And here's what I wrote:

Overall environmental impact, while somewhat in the spirit a no harm/consume less/do more philosophy, rather misses the point of moral vegetarianism, which is to refrain from violence against morally significant animals. An eco-friendly approach helps humans and non-humans but it seems beside the point. It suggests we can treat animals as biological machines provided we internalize otherwise nasty negative externalities. It's the healthy person argument -- adopting a vegetarian/vegan diet in order to extend life-span -- applied to the planet, and seems to have only one species in mind. (Compare eating locally raised "livestock" against flying in exotic vegetarian foods from overseas. According to this style of argument snuff films are less objectionable than a summer movie with a big chase scene).

There are already dozens of threads on these forums on vegetarianism. Many of the above risible arguments ("we evolved as meat-eaters, hunters") have already been addressed. Amusing as it is to see people helplessly flail in defense of the indefensible, anyone who has thought about the issue at length, subject their beliefs and traditions to contestation, will probably conclude the biggest hurdle veganism faces is not rational argument, but rational people.

 

[cyborg]

Wow, you should have "moron" stamped on your forehead.

Yes, then when we go out to together it would match your "retard" birthmark.

All I can do is articulate the conditions

Really? Can you? Because that's been an epic fail for you thus far.

In my view, road-kill is vegan, a position that is not universally shared, and highlights my tension with the term

Yes, as a newly discovered vegan I find that the other vegans look at me funny when I tuck into my seal meat until I explain that I wrestled it away from a killer whale and hence I was not engaged in the act of its death - then it's okay because I'm morally absolved.

Although maybe I shouldn't have given the seals a sporting chance by not herding them towards the whale school but what the hell as long as I'm happy that my hands are free of blood I can sit atop the high horse with my fellow vegans and feel superior to those meat-eaters... uh, non-vegans.

Imagine there's a rain forest plant that is a delicacy; however, it's extracted at great cost to its native eco-system and causes suffering for the herbivores who require it. It would be immoral to each such a plant, and for short-hand, I would not consider it vegan.

Imagine that you're born and that your mere existence will cause suffering for untold numbers of creatures whether you realise it or not. How do you justify not killing yourself now and sparing yourself the moral ambiguity - fellow vegan?

Also I do presume that since this sort of analysis is fundamental to the vegan lifestyle that you can point me towards the standard vegan analysis techniques that allow me to determine relative vegan ratings for potential food stuffs? I presume there's some sort of computable threshold and you're not just arbitrarily using random factoids to formulate reasons for your diet and/or continued justification of your existence?

 

[Telaynay's G'son]

The OP title implies omnivores are required to have an "excuse" for consuming animal flesh.

So, who's the rational person?

 

[cyborg]

The OP title implies omnivores are required to have an "excuse" for consuming animal flesh.

So, who's the rational person?

Well I'm not going to claim that my food choices are rational beyond ensuring the nutrition I require so we're just going to have to wait for the vegan mathematical formulae to be posted. I'm sure they must exist - can't be a totally rational system without them.

 

[Manopolus]

Cow farts destroy the environment, which makes eating beef wrong and making cows extinct right.

It's not like we aren't attempting to do something about that particular aspect. There ARE studies being done to find ways to reduce the methane problem, which are not targeted towards cow genecide or human vegetarianism. I'm too lazy to give you sources, but I'm sure that you can find them as easily as I can.

 

[Mirrorglass]

The vegan side... believes... all moral rules that apply to humans apply to animals as well.

No. The more common examples of dogs voting and lions getting charged for murder would not apply.

Hold on, you actually snipped off the part of my quote where I asked you to correct me if I'm wrong? Why would you do that? That has got to be some of the most dishonest argumentation I've seen yet. To put things in perspective, here's the real quote:

The vegan side (it seems to me; correct me if I'm wrong) believes animals have a capacity for suffering, desires and intentions, and that from this it follows that all moral rules that apply to humans apply to animals as well.

See, it's because of stuff like this we don't take you seriously. Your argumentation is as bad as your manners.

It's an arbitrary standard plucked from the ether. Most vegans argue that rights should be based on interests. A dog has no understanding of political elections -- not the slightest interest in voting -- so it should not receive a ballot. A dog can experience pain; in all likelihood, it does not enjoy pain. So we should not inflict pain on dogs (or other animals) unless we have a compelling reason (it's for the dog's own good, the earth is going to end, whatever). And here's the central dispute: most people say that animal suffering is worth it because they taste delicious.

Like I've said - so what? A dog can experience pain in the sense a computer can experience me typing. It cannot suffer in the sense a human can. Drawing the line at pain is, you nailed it, an arbitrary standard plucked from the ether.

This same interest-right based-thinking applies to infants or toddlers or whomever. Our reasoning does not go, "Hey, baby Jane Doe will one day understand a concept of rights." As a man, I do not have a right to an abortion, never mind if I have a better understanding of the concept than an 18 year-old girl, I can't have an abortion. Toddlers, dogs and mentally incapacitated people can still feel pain.

Bacteria have interests as well. So do plants. Why do they not matter? Again, you drawing the line at an arbitrary place. Which is fine, but no finer than my arbitrary line is.

We agree pain is morally significant? Are we impartial enough to recognize that it does not matter who suffers, regardless of species? It's better for Homeless Willy to die in his sleep than have teenagers beat him to death.

No, we don't. Have you been reading my posts at all? I care about suffering, not pain, and suffering takes a human sufferer. (By the way, I do know the word "suffer" has other meanings, some of which apply to animals; however, in this discussion, what I mean by "suffering" is the experience unique to humans.)

So, what if you kill the animal painlessly? The next step involves future interests. If a cow leads an idyllic life on the farm, then why kill it at all? Because it has trivial interests (?) -- eating, defecating and screwing -- while you have big, important interests, say, eating something meat that tastes good?

Do you think the cow understands what death is? If you do, then you're deluded. If you don't, why would you assume the cow wants to live longer? It should have no opinion on the matter, as it doesn't know it has a choice. And I don't care about a cow's interests any more than I care about the interests of the E.Coli bacteria living on my skin.

If you do think animals have ANY rights, then it should not matter what a person does to them. If I want to torture cats, then that should be cool. If I want to make a coat from Dalmation puppies -- also totally cool. Once again, the meat-eaters are the ones who want to legislate their tastes: they (generally) say it's OK to eat animals, but bestiality is somehow wrong, "disgusting" and "twisted."

Seriously, do you read what I type at all? I've said several times I don't think animals have ANY rights. I've already given my reasons for why I don't condone torturing cats; because it brutalizes humans. I have no problem with bestiality either, as long as it doesn't involve hurting the animal unnecessarily and it's not an animal I'm going to eat. You're not doing your arguments any good by trying to attribute views to me.

Sure. My only general objection to your post is the insistence on eating these morally insignificant beings. You can do almost anything you want to the blob of tissue provided you're not harming anyone of moral significance.

Given that fetuses fall within this range, you're essentially saying it's all right to do anything you want to them. Which is.. well, in my view, very immoral.

Now here's my scenario: A fire sweeps through a fertility clinic. You can save either a five year-old or a freezer containing hundreds of embryos.

I don't consider an unimplanted embryo to have the potential to become a human, which is where your idea falls down. It wouldn't be much of a choice.

This is not a good argument. It's like saying, "everybody has irrational, unjustified beliefs." Sure, everybody does, but not all craziness is created equal.

Yes, it is. All morals are based on arbitrary standards. To say some moral system is worse than others is only possible when viewing it from another arbitrary moral standard. You cannot prove you are right; you can try to convince us, but your strategy of repeating your point and calling us names isn't doing a very good job.

This seems to suggest realistically simulated violence is not much worse than actual violence.

Only if you can't tell the difference between the two. I have nothing against playing Call of Duty, but I would strongly oppose immersing children into a virtual reality version of the game and convincing them they were really killing people.

Environmental/resource vegetarianism is anthropocentric, morally off-kilter.

An arbitrarily placed kilter, that is. Luckily, there's another kilter right at anthropocentrism.

Also, do you claim your views are not anthropocentric? Let's have another hypothetical situation:

You, five other people and five dogs are stranded on a snowy mountain. You know you will be rescued, but it will take a week. There is no food available, and it is clear the only way for some of you to survive is to kill and eat one of the group; otherwise, all of you will starve or freeze.

Would you say you have to decide the one to be eaten by lot, with both the dogs and the humans having equal chance?

Here's one such thread from a couple years ago, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117736 The parent has an article that says "According to Cornell ecologist David Pimentel, animal protein demands tremendous expenditures of fossil-fuel energy—-about eight times as much for a comparable amount of plant protein."

And here's what I wrote:

To be frank, the page didn't impress. It didn't cover any of the actual aspects I was concerned about; namely the feasibility of producing vegetable protein (and other nutrients traditionally acquired from meat) on the scale animal protein (and other animal nutrients) are required by the population and how the move to vegan agriculture should be implemented.


ETA: Also, Cain, please don't confuse words. "Vegan^WP" means:

Veganism is a philosophy and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose.

It doesn't matter what your reasoning for the philosophy and lifestyle is. If you don't care about eating animals, but about causing as little harm as possible, then you're not a vegan. There probably is another word for your lifestyle, though I don't know what it is. You should find out, though.

 

[Manopolus]

Singer, again, is perfectly consistent about this issue. He says that we should either be perfectly happy to stun the mentally disabled and bleed them out if it suits us and also be happy to do it to animals, or we should refrain from killing either group because it suits us. He goes with the not-kill-either-group alternative, but I think he accepts that the kill-the-disabled-and-pigs alternative is equally consistent.

Here are the problems with this perspective, which I've mentioned before, but have yet to recieve an answer to from the other side:

I think most people's ethics would require them to intervene by any means possible, including violence, if they were witnessing another person being raped, tortured, or killed (of course, fear might prevent it, but ethics would generally require it).

If we are to give animals the particular rights and considerations that we do humans, in regard to life... it would require us to violently defend animals, as well... up to and including cockroaches, I presume... by any means necessary, including violence, and possibly war.

Again, absolutism does not ethically apply. The question is where you draw the line and why. I have yet to see any justification of where you draw it. There are very good reasons to extend the ethics to all within the species. Outside of the species things get a bit vague. Shall we defend goats but not rats? Rats but not cockroaches? Does it depend on how "cute and cuddly" they are? Please note my older posts about the difference between pets and farm animals, as well. I have no problem extending the ethic to dogs and cats, because these creatures at least hold the capacity for affection... a building block for morality. Cattle are significantly different, as are chickens and garden variety pigs (not to be confused with pot-bellied pigs). None of these seem to be particularly affectionate, from my experience.

(added) PLEASE, can somebody on the vegan/vegetarian side of this argument please tell me the exact place at which they draw the proverbial line, and justify why the line belongs there? Without this information, I have no idea how to continue this argument. I believe that I have justified my own position quite well. Let me know where the problem areas are if you think otherwise.

 

[Cain]

Hold on, you actually snipped off the part of my quote where I asked you to correct me if I'm wrong? Why would you do that? That has got to be some of the most dishonest argumentation I've seen yet. To put things in perspective, here's the real... [snipped]

Why are you acting so ****y? You're gonna have a meltdown because I cut out an irrelevant parenthetical note, one I honor in the act of replying? This is "dishonest argumentation" because it strives for substantive clarity? It would have been easier to just leave the whole paragraph unedited. Jesus, I recall earlier in this thread where you faithfully quoted me and then ignored a key word "almost," mischaracterizing my view.

Edited by LashL: 

To mask profanity. Please heed Rule 10 and do not swear in your posts.

However, in retrospect I would keep the quote the same, BUT change my response from "no" to "I would clarify by..."

See, it's because of stuff like this we don't take you seriously. Your argumentation is as bad as your manners.

So you're admitting to ad hominem?

Like I've said - so what? A dog can experience pain in the sense a computer can experience me typing. It cannot suffer in the sense a human can. Drawing the line at pain is, you nailed it, an arbitrary standard plucked from the ether.

Pain is not the standard, just morally significant. The dog-computer analogy is unclear to me, and not helped by the human comparison which can imply that dogs do experience pain.

Bacteria have interests as well. So do plants. Why do they not matter?

Those organisms lack the capacity to experience pain, much less anticipate the future.

No, we don't. Have you been reading my posts at all? I care about suffering, not pain, and suffering takes a human sufferer. (By the way, I do know the word "suffer" has other meanings, some of which apply to animals; however, in this discussion, what I mean by "suffering" is the experience unique to humans.)

Silly me. I'm sure you fleshed out this highly idiosyncratic take on suffering, and if you didn't, it's my fault for not assuming it. Bad manners, you see. So, um, how is suffering uniquely human? I'll be sure to refrain from saying something like "X animal suffering from a broken leg."

Do you think the cow understands what death is? If you do, then you're deluded. If you don't, why would you assume the cow wants to live longer? It should have no opinion on the matter, as it doesn't know it has a choice.

They have no concept of heaven, or the idea that an immaterial soul lives on. Stupid cows! If cows could kill themselves, they would. Too bad they're too dumb.

And I don't care about a cow's interests any more than I care about the interests of the E.Coli bacteria living on my skin.

So if X animal suffers from a broken leg, you do not even understand why someone would put her out of her "misery"? Like, who cares? Unless, I'm misreading you...

Seriously, do you read what I type at all? I've said several times I don't think animals have ANY rights. I've already given my reasons for why I don't condone torturing cats; because it brutalizes humans. I have no problem with bestiality either, as long as it doesn't involve hurting the animal unnecessarily and it's not an animal I'm going to eat. You're not doing your arguments any good by trying to attribute views to me.

Probably because you say contradictory nonsense like that highlighted above. *shrug* People do not need to eat meat, which means we're hurting animals unnecessarily.

Given that fetuses fall within this range, you're essentially saying it's all right to do anything you want to them. Which is.. well, in my view, very immoral.

Well, not ANYTHING. You can't play football with them. This is America -- it's called soccer.

I don't consider an unimplanted embryo to have the potential to become a human, which is where your idea falls down. It wouldn't be much of a choice.

You mean my idea "falls down" because your view is false? Of course they have the potential to develop into whatever you choose to call "human." But I can indulge even false views. Suppose the technology exists for artificial wombs, so the embryos are growing, transforming. Now let's imagine you can save a dozen of these implanted embryos... or a five year-old.

Yes, it is. All morals are based on arbitrary standards. To say some moral system is worse than others is only possible when viewing it from another arbitrary moral standard. You cannot prove you are right; you can try to convince us, but your strategy of repeating your point and calling us names isn't doing a very good job.

Postmodernist!

[I snipped some stuff on video-game violence.]

An arbitrarily placed kilter, that is. Luckily, there's another kilter right at anthropocentrism.

Also, do you claim your views are not anthropocentric? Let's have another hypothetical situation:

You, five other people and five dogs are stranded on a snowy mountain. You know you will be rescued, but it will take a week. There is no food available, and it is clear the only way for some of you to survive is to kill and eat one of the group; otherwise, all of you will starve or freeze.

Would you say you have to decide the one to be eaten by lot, with both the dogs and the humans having equal chance?

We're asked this all the time! Well, the details change, I prefer tropical islands and wouldn't get caught dead on a snowy mountain: man bites dog. We probably start with the biggest dog, and when feeding him to the smaller ones joke, "it's a dog-eat-dog world."

ETA: Also, Cain, please don't confuse words. "Vegan^WP" means:

It doesn't matter what your reasoning for the philosophy and lifestyle is. If you don't care about eating animals, but about causing as little harm as possible, then you're not a vegan. There probably is another word for your lifestyle, though I don't know what it is. You should find out, though.

I call it Cainesianism.

-----------------------------
Cyborg:

[snipped some truly clever stuff about "retard birthmark" and "epic fail," still surprised you don't know who Mike Wallace is.]

Yes, as a newly discovered vegan I find that the other vegans look at me funny when I tuck into my seal meat until I explain that I wrestled it away from a killer whale and hence I was not engaged in the act of its death - then it's okay because I'm morally absolved.

Oooh, I'm sorry. For a second there, I thought you were going to say something that wasn't stupid. Eating this seal meat would be immoral, for reasons already mentioned (A person who buys burgers from McDonalds is "not engaged in the act" of the cow's death.)

Imagine that you're born and that your mere existence will cause suffering for untold numbers of creatures whether you realise it or not. How do you justify not killing yourself now and sparing yourself the moral ambiguity - fellow vegan?

Yes, I see your situation. I think that involves so many variables that the decision must be left to you.

Also I do presume that since this sort of analysis is fundamental to the vegan lifestyle that you can point me towards the standard vegan analysis techniques that allow me to determine relative vegan ratings for potential food stuffs? I presume there's some sort of computable threshold and you're not just arbitrarily using random factoids to formulate reasons for your diet and/or continued justification of your existence?

I would not say "fundamental," or invoke a "computable threshold." It's not unlike people who choose to drive more eco-friendly cars or take their own bag to the grocery store. Then they also take into account their positive contributions to the world, which might be an alien concept to you.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Why are you acting so ****y? You're gonna have a meltdown because I cut out an irrelevant parenthetical note, one I honor in the act of replying? This is "dishonest argumentation" because it strives for substantive clarity? It would have been easier to just leave the whole paragraph unedited. Jesus, I recall earlier in this thread where you faithfully quoted me and then ignored a key word "almost," mischaracterizing my view.

However, in retrospect I would keep the quote the same, BUT change my response from "no" to "I would clarify by..."

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

Because you misrepresented my view, clearly and intentionally, while still claiming to be quoting me. That is about the rudest thing you can do on an internet board.

So you're admitting to ad hominem?

Not in my arguments, no. Or when have I said your opinion is wrong because you're rude and inconsistent? I do slip some snide remarks in between the arguments, but even that I only started after you'd been rude in several posts.

Pain is not the standard, just morally significant. The dog-computer analogy is unclear to me, and not helped by the human comparison which can imply that dogs do experience pain.

Those organisms lack the capacity to experience pain, much less anticipate the future.

A dog doesn't "anticipate the future" either, at least not to any great degree. For the rest of the points, see below.

Silly me. I'm sure you fleshed out this highly idiosyncratic take on suffering, and if you didn't, it's my fault for not assuming it. Bad manners, you see. So, um, how is suffering uniquely human? I'll be sure to refrain from saying something like "X animal suffering from a broken leg."

Here is the point I made a few posts ago:

The vegan side (it seems to me; correct me if I'm wrong) believes animals have a capacity for suffering, desires and intentions, and that from this it follows that all moral rules that apply to humans apply to animals as well.

The omnivore side has made the claim that "capacity for suffering" is something produced by a form of abstract thinking unique to humans (some higher primates may or may not also be included), and that it is this abstract thinking, along with the fact that we are of a different species, that distinguishes humans from animals from a moral perspective.

Basically, my definition of suffering requires the capability of abstract thinking; or to put it more simply, you can only suffer if you understand what the concept of suffering means.

Animals don't think about pain; they just react to it. Have you ever seen a dog with a broken leg? It keeps on moving forward the best it can, and goes on with it's life. It may spend time resting it's leg, but it won't give up seeking food and doing everything it normally would. A human, on the other hand, may stop walking completely, become depressed or do any number of things that will not benefit him at all. It is this ability that makes the humans capable of suffering in a way that is beyond animals.

They have no concept of heaven, or the idea that an immaterial soul lives on. Stupid cows! If cows could kill themselves, they would. Too bad they're too dumb.

Silly strawmen. I asked whether you think cows know they will die.

So if X animal suffers from a broken leg, you do not even understand why someone would put her out of her "misery"? Like, who cares? Unless, I'm misreading you...

An excellent demonstration of two themes consistent in your posts: dishonesty and mean-spiritedness.

Anyway, I consider watching an animal in pain when there is something I can do to ease said pain similar to torturing one, and the reasoning is similar. I've already explained what I'd do in a situation like that.

Probably because you say contradictory nonsense like that highlighted above. *shrug* People do not need to eat meat, which means we're hurting animals unnecessarily.

Good point. I could have worded that better. I should say, I consider it wrong to hurt animals without a reason stemming from a necessity. In this case, I need food, and as an animal is food to me, I have a reason to kill it. I will do it as painlessly as possible.

By the way, do you have any knowledge of the question I asked about the feasibility of vegan farming on a global scale? This is a very important question to the debate.

Well, not ANYTHING. You can't play football with them. This is America -- it's called soccer.

I'm starting to think you're just a troll.

You mean my idea "falls down" because your view is false? Of course they have the potential to develop into whatever you choose to call "human." But I can indulge even false views. Suppose the technology exists for artificial wombs, so the embryos are growing, transforming. Now let's imagine you can save a dozen of these implanted embryos... or a five year-old.

I suppose I could have been clearer here too. When I spoke of potential, I was speaking of beings that have the potential to develop into humans more or less on their own. I don't consider to have a moral responsibility to implant embryos grown in test tubes to women any more than I consider it my responsibility to make sure each of my sperms will fertilize an egg.

As for the revised question, assuming these embryos can be expected to develop into healthy children, then yes. It would essentially be a question of saving one child or twelve babies. Not hard for a practical thinker.

Postmodernist!

What a delightfully childish non-response to a point you can't refute.

We're asked this all the time! Well, the details change, I prefer tropical islands and wouldn't get caught dead on a snowy mountain: man bites dog. We probably start with the biggest dog, and when feeding him to the smaller ones joke, "it's a dog-eat-dog world."

So could you explain to me why you killed a dog, not one of the humans?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I don't know if you're just using plain sophistry or what, but I don't think you've answered my question within that bunch of confusing rhetoric. So I guess I'm going to try again. See if you can please answer it in a way that's clear, concise and simple:

What does Darwin's finding tell you about morality in nature? Do you still feel nature has any morality at all when it allows things like that to happen? Regardless of whether your answer is yes or no, please explain why.

Your question is irrelevant, stupid and has already been answered over and over again.

Scroll up. Do you see a big picture of Hume, captioned "David Hume says IS does not imply OUGHT"? There's your answer. It has already been provided in lolcat format for the truly thick. There is nothing more I can do.

I think any argument of authority is fallacious, no matter how great the authority. On philosophical matters, to make an argument, you must present the line of reasoning that brought it, not just the name of a famous philosopher. Referring to Kant is also very dishonest, here, since Kevin clearly rejects Kant's ideas on animal rights.

Anyway, Kevin already said he wasn't saying Kant's opinion gives his opinion value. Which begs the question what the purpose of mentioning Kant at all was.

The cliche you want is "raises the question". "Begs the question" means something entirely different. Also, I already explained to you once that I brought up Kant in answer to your specific question asking for multiple, independently coherent objectivist theories. If you're still trying to make a talking point by twisting that answer either you're not paying attention or you're incapable of following an argument.

The vegan side (it seems to me; correct me if I'm wrong) believes animals have a capacity for suffering, desires and intentions, and that from this it follows that all moral rules that apply to humans apply to animals as well.

The omnivore side has made the claim that "capacity for suffering" is something produced by a form of abstract thinking unique to humans (some higher primates may or may not also be included), and that it is this abstract thinking, along with the fact that we are of a different species, that distinguishes humans from animals from a moral perspective.

The vegan side claims this distinction is "arbitrary", and also seem to say "arbitrary" equals "useless" which, in this case, equals "wrong", all of which are questionable claims when speaking of morality. Also,

why would drawing the line at abstract thinking be more arbitrary than drawing it at capacity for suffering?

Asked and answered. People who aren't psychopaths consider animal cruelty wrong whether or not we can prove that the animal in question is capable of abstract thought. Torturing the mentally ill or mentally disabled is considered bad whether or not we can prove that the person in question is capable of abstract thought.

We can value humans more than animals because of their capacity for abstract thought, certainly, although that does entail putting some mentally disabled in the same bin as animals.

Singer would have us put them in the same bin as animals and then be nice to them, and nice to animals. However it's equally consistent to put them in the same bin as animals and then butcher them all for pet food.

Another point made by the vegan side is that some mentally retarded humans, fetuses and young children do not fulfill the criteria of abstract thinking.

For fetuses and children, it has been presented that they have the potential to develop abstract thinking.

Yes, the "acorns are oak trees" argument. We never treat potentiality as actuality. Except in this one case you want to do that, because you think this ad hoc move gets you out of a hole.

As for the arbitrariness of the potential-argument.. Well, yes, it is arbitrary. So what? Why shouldn't a moral system make some arbitrary assumptions? Or rather, can you provide an example of a moral system that does not?

"Arbitrary" in this sense means "has absolutely no discernible basis except for the desire by meat-eaters to draw a target after they have shot the arrow". Lots of moral systems don't have assumptions that are arbitrary in that sense.

For the case about severely mentally retarded humans, namely that if moral rights are granted according to capacity for abstract thinking, then then some mentally retarded humans will have none - that is to say, the moral reasoning that allows me to eat meat doesn't protect these people.

Again, so what? It doesn't protect my windows or mow the lawn either. I have other reasons for not eating retarded people than their intelligence. The extreme example given, a human whose mind is so poorly developed he is indistinguishable from an animal, and has no potential for growth.. no, I do not believe this hypothetical being is in any way above animals. I don't think their life has any particular value. (It should be noted that I've never met or heard about a person like this, with the exception of the people born without brains).

Fair enough. The same people who called Singer a Nazi would call you one for that, but at least you are consistent. As long as you're up for slaughtering the mentally disabled then there's nothing philosophically inconsistent about your position.

The reason I would still not kill or hurt the person is the same as my reason for not hurting animals unnecessarily; such acts are very reminiscent to hurting people that can actually suffer. It would feel like hurting a person.

That's a stupid reason to refrain from doing something.

Also, I can't think of a situation where hurting this retarded person was necessary; even the most fiery-souled vegan can't really think a meat-eater would consider eating human flesh any more readily than a vegan. Right?

It would save loads of money if we could put down the seriously mentally disabled the same way we put down an unwanted pet.

It's been a long rant, so I'll sum it up here.

1) The meat-eater view is no more arbitrary than the vegan view.

2) No matter how many times you present it, the idea that meat-eaters should also eat children is false.

3) The arrogant, rude and condescending attitude that all vegans arguing in this thread seem to consistently sport is not helping your cause.

1. Incorrect.
2. Incorrect.
3. I can't speak for Cain but I'm not here to be your bestest friend, nor am I here to get tactical advice from butthurt meat eaters.

 

[Cavemonster]

Aww, I'm feeling a little left out.
I posted an internally consistent, rational argument for why I would kill animals for food and not humans and it has not been addressed by the vegans claiming such a position is not possible

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5832929#post5832929